Posted on 08/15/2006 8:17:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A move by Democrats to allocate about $1 billion from two voter initiatives on the November ballot has upset Republicans, who say it reneges on the deal that led to a massive infrastructure package going before voters this fall.
An Assembly committee on Wednesday is scheduled to consider legislation by Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, that would specify funding for parks if the bond measures are approved by voters.
Republicans had rejected spending on parks this spring during negotiations over a public works package that asks voters to approve money for transportation, levee repair, schools and affordable housing. That package, worth $37.3 billion, was placed on the November ballot as a series of bond measures.
"It's a typical bait-and-switch," said Mike Villines, R-Fresno. "Voters are voting on something they believe to be a bond package that when we vote (will be) changed."
At issue are two of the initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballot. One is part of the infrastructure package and would allocate $2.8 billion for affordable housing projects.
The other is Proposition 84, a citizen initiative that would raise $5.4 billion to fund a variety of projects related to water pollution, water quality and supply. It also would provide money for conservation, and state and local park improvements.
Chesbro's bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, would allocate $580 million from Proposition 84 and $500 million from the housing bond, according to a Republican analysis of the bill.
Chesbro said his bill would simply ensure that park funding already contained in those bonds is distributed to both urban and rural parks.
"My concern is to try to make sure if those bond monies are approved, they are fairly allocated and we strike a balance between urban and rural areas," Chesbro said. "I would think Republicans would like that."
He noted that many Republicans represent rural areas that often get shortchanged in competitive-grant programs.
But Republicans complain the bill breaks the accord reached last April among the legislative leadership, a deal that revived the stalled negotiations over an infrastructure package.
At the time, Republicans dropped their demand for money to build dams and reservoirs in exchange for Democrats dropping a demand to set aside money for urban parks.
"This is a slap in the face at the legislative leadership and the governor who negotiated a deal," said Assembly Republican Leader George Plescia of La Jolla. "I think the majority party should hold their members to the agreement."
Neither Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, nor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken a position on the bill, according to their offices.
Among the chief concerns of Assembly Republicans is that the bulk of the money would be funneled to urban and suburban parks. That would leave rural taxpayers to foot the bill for parks that will never be built in their neighborhood.
"If you live in the Central Valley, Riverside, Northern California, you will see zero of it," Villines said. "This is a typical way to undercut the process and add in anything they want. It's not the way things should be done."
But Chesbro, who represents a largely rural part of the Northern California coast, said at least half the money would be steered to suburban and rural areas.
Republicans complain the bill breaks the accord reached last April among the legislative leadership, a deal that revived the stalled negotiations over an infrastructure package.
At the time, Republicans dropped their demand for money to build dams and reservoirs in exchange for Democrats dropping a demand to set aside money for urban parks.
Well, I have to say it again, but I'm shocked, just shocked. Who could ever have imagined that the Democrats would make a promise and break it right away? I wonder in whose district the parks are?
I want to write an initiative. It will forbid the paying of state senators or assemblymen. No compensation for service now, in the future or in the past. Every penny that would be paid for their health care, their retirement, their salary all goes into a fund to pay for urban parks.
Oh, and one urban park is renamed in honor of each elected official, just so they know where to go to visit their money.
I'm shocked to find gambling going on!
I hope the happy little band of Sacmo dealbrokers won't be as shocked when I vote no on every bond issue they can dream up. It's this kind of crap that makes me dead certain the money will never go to what the intended project is. It will just be looted to buy votes, exactly as the transportation budget is now, instead of building roads.
This is perfect!
This exposes the exact reason why ALL of these bonds should be rejected.
There is no specificity in the ballot measures on how the money will be spent.
These dems will get the money and then squander it on everything except roads and levee safety.
Who would be responsible for gang suppression in these "parks"? The Avenues? The LACSD? The California State Police? The California National Guard?
Would admittance to these "parks" be based on diversity or would they be mono-cultural?
Would the use of English be allowed in these "parks"?
Infrastructure, Aye!
No problem, Smart Growth'll fix it right up.. :-}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.